search for: matyjewicz

On Nov 29, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Wojciech Matyjewicz wrote: > As you have noticed, loops aren't represented directly in the LLVM IR. > However, there are analysis passes which may be helpful to > "reconstruct" > them. For example: LoopInfo pass detects natural loops (as sets of > basic > blocks) and ScalarEvolutio...

...issing anything here? BTW, when I run llvm test, is there a flag that can turn on option to print the test commands in details in addition to just show the test is passed or failed? Thank you Haifeng On 8/23/07, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > On 8/23/07, Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> wrote: > > Static ID fields in pass classes seem to be lacking definitions (there > > were some changes in LLVM core classes and poolalloc hasn't been yet > > fully updated to reflect them). The attached patch fixes this for DSA > > cla...

On 8/23/07, Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> wrote: > Static ID fields in pass classes seem to be lacking definitions (there > were some changes in LLVM core classes and poolalloc hasn't been yet > fully updated to reflect them). The attached patch fixes this for DSA > classes - LLVMDataStruc...

Devang Patel wrote: > Right now, one big missing piece in this puzzle is - dependence > analysis. Right. I was only trying to say that it shouldn't be very difficult to find these for/do loops which are interesting from the parallelization perspective (in general, not all for/do loops can be reconstructed). As for the dependence analysis, I need this piece for my project, and I am

Hi! Haifeng He wrote: > okay. I guess I figured it out. It seems "poolalloc" needs to be put > in llvm/projects/ directory. Yes, it will compile then. However, it seems the resulting shared library LLVMDataStructure.so (I haven't checked the others) has some undefined symbols. Trying to load it into the opt tool produces an error: undefined symbol:

> Wojtek, > > Please see David's message below. Have you or can you check in your > code, perhaps as a project for now? That will allow us to start > looking at it and perhaps collaborating on it. Sure. For now, I am posting it as an attachment, because it does not build against the current SVN version. It is really basic (for example, it cannot produce distance vectors,

Back in August, several of us participated in a discussion about getting a more robust memory dependence analysis framework into LLVM. Wojtek Matyjewicz has done some work on this and he attached a patch to an e-mail at the time that built against an older version of LLVM. Wojtek, what's the status of this patch? Does it build against HEAD? Do you plan to check it in any time soon? I've just run into a couple of situations where I nee...

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Wojciech Matyjewicz wrote: > As for the dependence analysis, I need this piece for my project, and I > am preparing myself to write it. Great! > I am currently studying some papers, but haven't yet decided on the > method. Maybe some of you have experience in the area and would like to > advise...

...in details in addition to just show the test > is passed or failed? > I believe using make VERBOSE=1 will do this. -- John T. > Thank you > > Haifeng > > > > > On 8/23/07, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > >> On 8/23/07, Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> wrote: >> >>> Static ID fields in pass classes seem to be lacking definitions (there >>> were some changes in LLVM core classes and poolalloc hasn't been yet >>> fully updated to reflect them). The attached patch fixes thi...

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> wrote: >> I asked myself the same question. Without mod, how do you ensure that for instance the expression 2*i+255 was not actually 2*i-1 ? > > I think it is not possible in general, but I believe it is possible in > case of affine expressions used...

Wojtek, Please see David's message below. Have you or can you check in your code, perhaps as a project for now? That will allow us to start looking at it and perhaps collaborating on it. --Vikram Associate Professor, Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign http://llvm.org/~vadve On Aug 20, 2008, at 3:05 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 20 August 2008

On Mar 18, 2008, at 8:03 AM, Wojciech Matyjewicz wrote: > Hi, > > Devang Patel wrote: >> LLVM loop transformer operates at loop level, which is not what many >> optimizers do in general. So, a loop level interface (i.e. based on >> LoopPass in llvm) to find loop-carried dependence is preferable to >> loop optimiz...

> I asked myself the same question. Without mod, how do you ensure that for instance the expression 2*i+255 was not actually 2*i-1 ? I think it is not possible in general, but I believe it is possible in case of affine expressions used as GEP indices. I assume, GEP indices (except indexing into struct) are interpreted as signed integers. It isn't explicitly stated in the LangRef, but

Hi, Devang Patel wrote: > LLVM loop transformer operates at loop level, which is not what many > optimizers do in general. So, a loop level interface (i.e. based on > LoopPass in llvm) to find loop-carried dependence is preferable to > loop optimizer. Do you mean making Array Dependence Analysis a loop-level analysis? Would its results be available for some function-level pass

On Aug 20, 2008, at 8:56 AM, David Greene wrote: > What I really need is a dependence analysis interface. I need to know > about loop-carried dependencies and that sort of things, whether two > memory > operations reference the same data, distance information, etc.. As > far as I > can tell, there's no infrastructure for this in LLVM. Right, this is something we've

Hi, In the beginning I'd like to say I am not very familiar with (llvm-)gcc internals, so some of my assumptions and guesses may be wrong. Please, correct me, then. Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Internally OpenMP lowering in gcc is split into two phases. Funny, but > llvm converter is run between these phases :) It looks like second phase > uses some gcc analysis passes (like

Wojtek Matyjewicz has written a simple DependenceAnalysis interface and sent email about it to llvmdev in June -- the message is attached. He said he wrote several tests behind that interface -- ZIV, strong SIV, Banerjee, and some form of the Delta test -- and two students in my Spring class added the Omega...

Devang, > The easiest route would be to update llvm bitcode converter in llvm- > gcc-4.2 such that llvm bitcode converter operates on GCC trees after > OpenMP lowering phase is executed. > > If you're interested, we welcome contribution on OpenMP front. I already slightly looked on OpenMP in llvm-gcc 4.2. Internally OpenMP lowering in gcc is split into two phases. Funny,

On Monday 18 August 2008 17:48, David Greene wrote: > > Normally, the conversion to SSA form is sufficient. Can you talk > > about cases where this matters to you? > > Mostly it involves tying into our memory dependence analysis which > annotates things on program points. I need a way to translate back > to our optimizer data structures. > > So it's not

On Aug 21, 2008, at 1:37 AM, Wojciech Matyjewicz wrote: > I am investigating what changes are necessary to add support for > first-class structs and arrays and will prepare a version to check > in as > a LLVM project if there still is interest. We want to model this as an analysis and make following changes. - Rename LoopMemDepAn...